There is no such thing as a neutral or objective worldview when discussing risk. The way we understand and approach risk is through the lens of our worldview. It’s just that in Safety this is rarely forthcoming or articulated. Often a view is given as a ‘principle’ when it’s just a slogan or assumed to be objective, just because Safety declares it so.

Moreso, even the idea that wicked problems like risk, culture or any e-motional activity can be rationalised, is a common delusion. We see this often in the world of safety that seeks certainty where there is none and finds comfort in a few slogans.

The most common explanation of the impossible in safety is packed in a mechanistic worldview. This is how we end up with engineers lecturing safety about culture then telling everyone not to talk about it. This is how we end up with engineers lecturing the sector on ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-the-expert-in-everything-and-the-art-of-learning-nothing/) and associations describing humans as a hazard (https://safetyrisk.net/the-enemy-of-safety-humans/ ). This is how we end up with Safety lecturing safety on a theology of forgiveness (https://safetyrisk.net/forgiveness-safety/).

It seems no matter what the (wicked) problem is, Safety always has ‘controls’.

The reality is, when we get to those impossible things like forgiveness, death and suffering, there is no rational reason for certainty. This is why (wicked) problems are most often best met by Poetics and Semiotics.

When any e-motion becomes unbearable, the last thing one wants is some rationalised theory from Safety.

Most of the tough experiences of fallible personhood are not ‘fixed’ by some 3-step rationalisation. And, in safety, these packages most often come with no articulation of an ethic. So much is assumed about a moral position as if Safety thinks there is only one position.

I am reminded of the song by The Eagles The Heart of the Matter (https://youtu.be/Jm0IWv8sFyQ?si=MVGjq1Yvs1_HoEG6 ), written by Don Henley, Mike Campbell and J.D. Souther. This song is the last track off the Album suitable entitled The End of Innocence.

The song tells the story of a broken-hearted person, hurt by a partner who finds someone else. Many of us should know this experience. The pain and harm of a broken-heart lasts for years and decades.

One of the phrases that hits the spot is in the first verse that states ‘And how I lost me and you lost you’. and this is what Everyday Social Resilience (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/everyday-social-resilience-being-in-risk/) is about. There is no ‘bounce back’ or ‘mental fitness’ for grief, suffering and loss through some rational idea of ‘recovery’. This is why Safety has no idea what to do about psychosocial harm and why it thinks some silly hierarchy of controls is a response to mental health as a ‘hazard’.

It’s only when we step outside this rationalised worldview to try and control everything, that we can enter into a Poetic and Semiotic understanding of problems that have no solution and no return.

As Kierkegaard stated:

‘Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards’. Volume IV of the journals

 And this is the challenge of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/). This is why the only way forward in living and being is by faith. This is The Heart of the Matter. This is why risk and faith are the same thing.  This why the mystery of risk in safety is met by the constant use of religious metaphor and discourse.

When Safety starts talking about atonement, grace, justice, morality, repentance and confession, you wonder why religion is never discussed as a foundation for understanding culture. Yet, even these highly faith-based subjects are packed in a religious discourse of rationality. This is because Safety is afraid of uncertainty, afraid of faith and always seeks some process to control it.

This is why Safety substitutes slogans for methodology, as if comfort is found in its rhythms: ‘safety is a choice you make’, ‘all accidents are preventable’, ‘blame fixes nothing’ and yet none of these are true.

The reality is, fallibility is the starting foundation for understanding the unknowable, your e-motions and an ethic of personhood. This is why Safety is always silent about it (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-culture-silences/) yet uses religious discourse constantly (safety saves).

The beginning of grappling with all of this is understanding and learning to articulate your ‘ethic of risk’. If you want to explore what this is about, you can make a start here: https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/